To comply with European Union law, we are required to inform users accessing "overunity.com" from within the
EU about the cookies that this site uses and the information they contain and also provide them with the means
to "opt-in" - in other words, permit the site to set cookies.
Cookies are small files that are stored by your browser and all browsers have an option whereby you can inspect
the content of these files and delete them if you wish.

The following table details the name of each cookie, where it comes from and what we know about the information
that cookie stores:

Cookie

Origin

Persistency

Information and Usage

ecl_auth

overunity.com

Expires after 30 days

This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised".
Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.

SMFCookie648

overunity.com

Expires according to user-chosen session duration

If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of
your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating
new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.

PHPSESSID

overunity.com

Current session only

This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and
non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent
and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.

pmx_upshr{NAME}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel
or individual block is collapsed or expanded

pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a
individual block is changed.

pmx_cbtstat{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.

pmx_poll{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.

pmx_{fadername}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.

pmx_LSBsub{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.

pmx_shout{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.

pmx_php_ckeck

overunity.com

Page load time

This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated
and will be deleted if the function executed.

pmx_YOfs

overunity.com

Page load time

This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number.
The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position
as before the click.

Notes:

1

We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other
sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of
these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK"
and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.

2

If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before
accepting cookies.

3

Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser
is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is
not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.

4

We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site
from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic
location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

For further and fuller information about cookies and their use, please visit
All About Cookies

Then how do you measure, and what do you measure? And how you then calculate the energy?

You calibrate the weight to known readings in accordanceto your scales.For instance, if you zero the scales, then hang a weight thatreads 1N, (vertical). Then place them horizontally and take the same reading on the string tied to the backWhile attaching the hook to an immobile object holding the hook still.

and when your magnets (when scale is horizontal, with counterweight)also pull the scale to 1N, you have equilibrium between both forces.At this point, you know there are 2N of force between the magnets.1N towards the magnet and 1N pulling away (spring)This is your 0.[edit: this may not read “1N” after you add the pulley, so use the ‘leveraged’ value]

The difference between this point and a 0 reading is total 2N.Allowing them now to move:One force will get stronger and the other weaker, reflecting on your reading.

Restricting the pulley 1 rotation (or a whole number increment) you know the distance.Or you can measure the physical distance of where the magnet moves to/from.

A change in the “weight” is roughly 1/2 of the change of the PE.Converted to KE by the motion.

If you record the rpm you can use the acceleration equation as confirmation.

For instance, if you zero the scales, then hang a weight thatreads 1N, (vertical). Then place them horizontally and take the same reading on the string tied to the back

Great, and who will ever do that. When even my experiment, that is the most simple, no one ever replicates. Overunity research is in such a poor condition, no one ever measures anything.

In addition, all want self-runner. This is like a guarantee that no sef-runner will ever be made, because without measuring, it's like finding a needle in a haystack, practically completely impossible.

We, some people here, feel ourselves uneasy, because the things are not good.

What i would recommend, is to use electronic force gauge, instead of spring scales, because this spring inertia is a real problem. These cost a lot. Maybe some can make ones own, using a pressure sensitive resistor and arduino.

Even then, how to do that. Like you move one millimeter in a fraction of a second. How can one even see the reading, in so short time, Saving the maximum force, or even measuring history with readings and times, trying to use that together with the movement from the video, who ćan say.

But nevertheless the experiments can be done with spring scales. I used a spring scales with 5 N range, to say it again, these did cost $2.46 with shipping, from ebay.

What concerns the mu metal shielding, in this linear case, the measurements show that the attraction energy is less at the side of the big magnet, than at the pole of the big magnet. Thus, in this case, the shielding should be put to the side of the big magnet.

This, btw, is somewhat similar to what Naudin said. The attraction is more at the pole, than at the side. So the experiment in a way confirms what Naudin said. But, it is also possible to like, approach from the side, and leave at the top, the way that the attraction is greater at the side. It depends on the trajectory by which we move, what it appears to be. The experiment was about linear movement, movement on a straight line, with the magnet tilted 45 degrees.

Also, the attraction force was not really greater at the pole, but the force decreased more rapidly at the side. Thus, the energy of attraction was greater at the pole, than at the side. Is this the same as saying that attraction is greater at the pole, than at the side, this is a matter of interpretation. Naudin was also rather poorly translated, so it was difficult to understand what he really meant.

What concerns the shielding, it also does other things, like it also takes a part of the pole inside it. So i cannot say that there is any way to apply shielding, to increase asymmetry in that case.

What can be said for certain though, is that such things should be tried and measured separately before trying to make the final device. Because like trying to make a permanent magnet motor, and only then to find that the solution was wrong, is much too wasteful. Thus the importance of these experiments.

The friction is not constant, but it is greater, the greater is the component of the force down, one should understand that. The experiment however showed that the maximum friction at the left side was less than the maximum friction at the right side. The friction was in a way proportional to the measured horizontal force, and the force was less at the left side. Thus that the difference in friction made it to appear that the energy was more at the left side than at the right side, was certainly not true.

The friction force is at the opposite directions when the scales stand still, and when the scales move. The real force at a point is thus the average of the forces measured in these two ways. In my calculation i also calculated the real forces, assuming that the friction at one side was constant, because i couldn't measure with scales moving, at all measured points. This is a good enough approximation. And still by these calculations, the energy was more at the left side, and less at the right side.

What may be possible, is to try to measure moving force from every point to the end of the field. Maybe this would enable to estimate the moving force at more than one point. But the inertia of the spring makes that also difficult. I was only able to measure the moving force by one movement, at both sides.

Please see that i went it through, did all the experiment for the first time, measured the energy gain. Thus also seeing all the problems that there are in doing such experiments. There was nothing, and now there is something, even if not perfect, this is a huge difference, and very difficult to achieve. Columbus egg.

One more idea came to my mind. I don't say that it works, but something to try, and it may work. Considering how this experiment is done. There is a box, and the small magnet is on the lid of the box.

The force gauges are expensive. But there are electronic scales, that are very precise, and quite cheap. Of course they assume an equal distribution of weight, and an exactly perpendicular force.

Attach a hard disc, and a rod on it, to the electronic scale. So that the scale is put 90 degrees, and the rod reaches the small magnet. Then don't pull, but push. I don't know all the details, but when carefully done, this may actually enable to measure forces.

Another idea, that someone else, somewhere else told. Now that works by pulling. Attach a string to the magnet, over a pulley, and attach to the end of it a known weight. Then put that weight on the scales. Somehow make the length of the string adjustable. Then the scales will show the weight of the known weight, minus the force to the small magnet.

This will more likely work, but is somewhat more difficult to make. But people have tried, when putting an electronic scale to stand on its edge, it shows some force. This depends on the construction of the scales, some may not. But that with a weight and a pulley always works.

Also, just pulley, and a very exactly adjusted weight. Weight is the force. And the position of the magnet is exactly where the force to it is that great. This requires some good set of weights. And doesn't enable to measure force when moving, which the previous method may somewhat do, when moving the scales down some way.

As i see it. When using only a pulley and a weight to measure the force. When there is no friction, there is only one force to measure. And the magnet is always at the position where there is such force.

When there is friction, there are two forces to measure at any position of the magnet, instead of one. One is the minimum weight with which the weight still doesn't move up. This corresponds to the standing force. The other is the maximum weight with which the weight still doesn't move down. This corresponds to the moving force.

The real force is the average of these two forces. The friction can be calculated too, which in this case is the static friction, if the static friction is greater. The friction force is a half of the difference between these two forces. The friction in that case is also the friction of both the magnet and the pulley. Except when the friction of the pulley is very small, and can be disregarded.

What concerns the static friction, in that case what we always deal with, is static friction. To find the moving friction, if necessary, the ratio between the static friction and the moving friction should be measured. There is likely no greater static friction in case of dry slippery surfaces. But static friction is greater, like when there are ball bearings in the pulley.

"you will find that it requires more work to separatetwo magnets in attraction form one another, when they are slid side ways, than the work done when theyare pulled directly apart"

I don't know, there are many trajectories, i measured only the one, where the big (standing) magnet was tilted 45 degrees, and there the energy was greater at the side of the pole. And the movement was linear. It may be very different when we approach from some direction, then turn 90 degrees, and leave. Though it may be very difficult to make a mechanical device that will provide such movement.

One may derive the work done as in the work done to cause acceleration.

The unit of measurement, Newton of force, is itself derived from / based upon, mass and acceleration.And acceleration of course has a time component within it. because at leastIn theory this is a more fundamental and precise method to derive the unit of force (The Newton) frommass and acceleration. F= ma

In actual practice it is almost never done done this way............................A 101.971 gram mass (roughly 102 grams) exerts as weigh about 1 Newton of force (down) in standard gravity

The lifting of (or the falling of) a 101.971 gram mass, 1 meter in standard gravity is = 1 joule of work done as that lifting or falling.

Lifting 101.971 grams 1 meter against standard gravity in 1 second of time is = 1 Watt of power expended...........................A 1 kilogram of mass exerts 9.80665 Newtons of force (down) in standard gravity (roughly 10 Newtons)

The lifting of (or the falling of) a 9.80665 gram mass, 1 meter in standard gravity is = 9.80665 Joules or about 10 joules of work done as that lifting or falling............................The speed of the lifting and the speed of the falling do not change the amount of energy or the work done AS THAT LIFTING OR FALLING.The work done / energy expended, to cause acceleration is not taken into consideration in a calculation of the work done as lifting or of the work done as falling.

If one were accelerating a mass horizontally (no gravity involved) on can arrive at the work done through the formula Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared.This is a different matter, and best to leave acceleration out of the. at this time............................

@ EyeEye

Are you going to set and do a presentation of the work done in separating magnet at different angles and so on ?I think it would be really grate to see some experiments which are confirmations of some of the other research Iveseen on the internet.

Lifting 1 kilogram 1 meter against standard gravity in 1 second of time is = 9.80665 Watts (roughly 10 Watts) of power expended..............................1 Joule of energy transferred or work done, in 1 second of time is one watt of power expended.10 Joules of energy transferred or work done, in 1 second of time is 10 watts of power expended............................... best wishes floor

PS Looking at these 2 graphs (attached below) one can see how / why there could be a difference in the two actions.

The result was not what i expected, it appears that the magnet gets more energy at the left side, but with this linear movement it may be so, and it corresponds to how the magnets were tilted in my other experiment. Something like field lines that go to the other pole, bend away faster, and thus the force at the right side decreases much faster, one can clearly see that in the video.

The following was measured from the video. The angles by which the spring scales were tilted, were considered. At both sides the movement was considered so long, that at the end of it there was no measurable force to the magnet.

At the right side the magnet moved 3.57 mm with the force 0.8 N, and 2.29 mm with the force 1.0 N, thus energy at the right side was 5.15 mJ.

At the left side the magnet moved 17.43 mm with the force 0.6 N, and 6.71 mm with the force 0.4 N, thus energy at the left side was 13.14 mJ.

The force when moving was 1.2 N at the right side, and 0.8 N at the left side. Considering that the force when moving was constant, then the forces considering friction were the following.

Thus the energy at the right side was 6.09 mJ, and the energy at the left side was 16.23 mJ, 10.14 mJ more.

By these calculations, only 4 mJ goes to friction during all movement through the field, 6 mJ should be left. Thus the magnet should go through all the field when starting from the left, and gain speed. Yet, when releasing the magnet from the beginning of the field at left, it stops at the neutral position. I have not tried to make it to go through with an initial speed.

What i would like the most, is someone to replicate this experiment, many thanks.

Floor, i don't do fancy presentations. My experiment was described above, plus all the rest of the data in this thread.

The force of separation between the small magnet and a small disc magnet was 2.3 N. The force of separation between two small disc magnets was 1.8 N.

The force of separation between the big magnet and a small disc magnet was 1.6 N. The force of separation between the big magnet and the small magnet was 2.6 N. At that the small disc magnets always attracted to the edge of the big disc magnets.

The force of separation between two big disc magnets was 5.0 N.

The small magnet was two ceramic disc magnets 10 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick, one on another, and the big magnet was 8 ceramic disc magnets 25 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick, one on another.

These ceramic disc magnets are pretty standard, and easy to get. I got them from supermagnete, i don't even know where else to get ceramic magnets. In ebay, there are many neodymium magnets, but not that many ceramic magnets i think.

Trying to draw the results of my experiment with Bezier lines, it was like that below. Notice that the area at the left side of the y axis is greater than the area at the right side, this area is the energy.

I've tried something similar with the rectangular magnets I got on hand.I haven't done any measurements yet, but I've noticed, that on the way out the top magnet is being repelled with a big force,while on the way in, this magnet is being attracted to the stack.I will try getting some kind of a fish scale in Walmart, and do the measurements.

I've tried something similar with the rectangular magnets I got on hand.I haven't done any measurements yet, but I've noticed, that on the way out the top magnet is being repelled with a big force,while on the way in, this magnet is being attracted to the stack.

I don't quite understand what do you mean. I tried to measure all horizontal force both at the left and right side. But in he end at the both sides, the north pole of the small magnet started to repel from the north pole of the big magnet or something, the small magnet was like in the air, with no measurable horizontal force. Moving further away, the forces went too small. I could not measure any more forces than i did, i could not find no more measurable horizontal forces.

Yes, exactly, small magnet is being repelled, but it has not only vertical,but a horizontal vector as well, IMHO. Horizontal vector is in the same directionas was the attraction on the left side. I will try doing measurements onceget some kind of a fish scale.